Smart cities, epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions and the `last mile' problem

Abstract

We argue that the ideas, ideals and the rapid proliferation of smart city rhetoric and initiatives globally have been facilitated and promoted by three inter-related communities: (i) `urban technocrats'; (ii) a smart cities `epistemic community'; (iii) a wider `advocacy coalition'. We examine their roles and the multiscale formation, and why despite their influence they encounter a `last mile problem'; that is, smart city initiatives are yet to become fully mainstreamed. We illustrate this last mile problem through a discussion of plans to introduce smart lighting in Dublin.

Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe

“…A key aspect of the narrative driving technological solutionism is that government is behind the technology curve with respect to state-of-the-art ideas and systems for managing cities, and that such solutions can only be delivered by the market as public sector does not have sufficient knowledge, skills, resources or capacity to deliver or maintain them (Kitchin et al, 2017a). Instead, they need to draw on the competencies held within industry (such as large global consultancies and the producers of software and hardware solutions) that possess sufficient expertise to guide city administrators and can deliver better city services through public-private partnerships, leasing, deregulation and market competition, or outright privatization (Shelton et al, 2015).…”

“…Instead, the product is made openly available to the market in the case of apps, or procured or adopted by city technocrats on behalf of citizens in the case of infrastructure and policy. Indeed, as Kitchin et al (2017a) notes, in many cases neither citizens or politicians are involved in smart city deployments -such as smart lighting, parking, and sensor networks, which are considered operational matters and often fall outside of planning and development, with decisions being made by city administrators. In this sense, the initiatives are only citizen-focused at particular stages, but not throughout the life cycle of development and deployment.…”

Trends in Citizen-Generated and Collaborative Urban Infrastructure Feedback Data: Toward Citizen-Oriented Infrastructure Management in Japan

“…Especially given that users in their 60s submit many postings, it may be possible to expect future participation from a citizen-oriented patrol. Future research should focus on the relationship between participating citizens and the characteristics of posts, and on the "last one-mile" problem [32] faced by technocrats, such as the combination of sensors and applications to cooperative workshops for a real-time smart city; this is necessary to explore how to foster relationships between the new administration and citizens. Actually after 2016, the use of the Chiba-repo system has further increased.…”

Citizenship, Justice, and the Right to the Smart City

“…This was aided by an already well-established neoliberal political economy that promoted the marketisation and privatisation of city services. Initial momentum grew, aided by the rapid formation of a wellorganized epistemic community (a knowledge and policy community) and advocacy coalition (a collective of vested interests) operating across scales from global to local, and a cohort of favourably-minded technocrats embedded in government (Kitchin et al, 2017a). Kitchin (2016) From its inception the notion of the smart city has received sustained critique relating to how it: frames the city as systems rather than places; takes a technological solutionist approach; enacts technocratic forms of governance and reshapes governmentality; promotes corporatisation and privatisation of city services; prioritises the values and investments of vested interests; reinforces inequalities; produces a number of ethical concerns relating to surveillance, predictive profiling, social sorting and behavioural nudging; and potentially creates security vulnerabilities across critical infrastructures (see Datta, 2015;Greenfield, 2013;Hollands, 2008;Kitchin, 2014;Mattern, 2013;Townsend, 2013;Vanolo, 2014).…”